During the May 2010 general elections, in the Conservatives’ manifesto, the policy agenda of Big Society had three main themes, ‘community empowerment’, ‘opening up public services’ and ‘social action’. These translated respectively into localism and decentralisation of power to local communities; public services reform where public services would be commissioned out to charities and private sector business; and programmes to engage individuals as active citizens within their communities, for example the National Citizen Service for 16-year-olds (Macmillan, 2013a). The concept of Big Society has however had a problematic start with what appear to be several re-launches (Macmillan, 2013b) and ongoing critical commentary and academic analysis, despite the decline of policy statements and speeches within which it features (Sage, 2012; Scott, 2011). However, it is possible to extract some of the government’s intentions through these policy strands. First, the emphasis upon localism and decentralisation focused on the enhancement of the role of the local community. Bach argues that though localism is an ‘innocuous term’ the intent is ‘to encourage competition and choice’ (Bach, 2012: 404) at a local, service provision level. Not only is this opposed to the authority of locally elected local authorities, the Localism Bill (now the Localism Act) went further to suggest and encourage voluntary sector organisations and local communities to oppose and challenge existing service provision, and to tender to manage and deliver the services themselves. The government was explicit about this within the guidance on the Localism Bill which aims to ‘identify and tackle public sector monopolies across the board … all public services should be open to diverse provision’ (HM Government, 2011: 9). The second policy strand focused upon the provision of public services delivered by a diverse range of organisations. In particular, social enterprises, mutuals, cooperatives and charities were encouraged to expand within this area. The ‘Right to Provide’ initiative which aims to ‘unleash the power of employee ownership and control’ had a slow take up (Bach, 2012). The third strand of the policy development couples the intent to increase volunteerism among individuals and communities, with the increasing role of the voluntary sector. The provision of funding was intended to help resolve the funding deficits due to the economic downturn and local authority cuts. Underpinning this, the Coalition aimed to train and up-skill 5000 ‘community organisers’ to facilitate local community action to tackle local and larger social issues. The question arises, was this the Coalition’s way of empowering communities, or abdicating responsibility? Critics argue (for example, Bach, 2012) that these three policy strands have been underpinned by few actual initiatives but rather have been used ‘to weave together disparate policies and its imprecision may serve to disguise the extent of marketization and service withdrawal associated with the Coalition’s public service agenda’ (Bach, 2012: 404).
By 2012 the term ‘Big Society’ was fading fast from the public realm, more commonly replaced by terms such as ‘civil society’. This was epitomised further by the publication of the government’s Civil Society Strategy in 2018. With debates about Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union in full swing and divisions within civil society on the rise, it is unsurprising that the government launched a strategy which called for unity and support among communities. The strategy itself was an important step, as it delivered a uniting thread across government departments about the importance of civil society in both tackling contemporary problems and developing innovative solutions. The central tenet of the strategy is that communities can be helped to thrive, through the strengthening of ‘five foundations of social value’, people, places, the social sector, the private sector and the public sector.
The first theme, people, seeks to encourage individuals to have more control over their futures and communities, and to support them in taking action on issues which they care about. This taps into established programmes such as the national #iwill campaign, which encourages young people to volunteer, and place-based social action programmes, which encourages local responses to local needs. Fundamentally, the government wants more people who use public services involved in running those services. The second theme, places, seeks to encourage communities to be responsible for where they live. As part of this the government launched a new ‘Innovation in Democracy’ programme, to encourage new ways of individuals being involved in decision making which affects them. The third theme, the social sector, focuses on ensuring that voluntary organisations have impact on and help shape policy. The fourth theme, the private sector, seeks to encourage businesses to be socially and environmentally responsible. Finally, the fifth theme, the public sector, outlines a commitment to more collaborative commissioning processes. While not entirely new, more a re-hash of previous promises, commitments and dedicated funding, the strategy distinctly builds on the ideology set out in the earlier Conservative plans, around the Big Society and localism. However, it is a vision of sorts, but without the detail of how longer-term issues around funding, commissioning and reducing public sector funds are to be addressed, and it is likely to face some of the very same criticisms levelled at the Big Society.
Conservatives, children and early intervention
In 2010 with the establishment of the Coalition government came a range of structural and policy changes for children’s services. Arguing that the Children’s Trust Boards (see chapter 1) were over prescriptive, statutory guidance on these boards was withdrawn in 2010, meaning that there was no longer a statutory requirement for local authorities to produce a Children and Young People’s Plan (LGA, 2010). The requirement of a Children’s Trust Board was then removed altogether. Further changes followed, including the withdrawal of the ContactPoint database in 2010, the national Children’s Workforce Development Council was wound up in 2012 and Ofsted’s powers and functions were reviewed. However, the Coalition made some concrete attempts in committing to meet the needs of what it defined as ‘vulnerable’ children and young people, promoting a mixed welfare economy of statutory, voluntary and private sector providers. In 2010 the Coalition government commissioned the high profile and influential Munro Report (Munro, 2011) which argued for early intervention ‘to avoid costly interventions’ (Munro, 2011: 22). Echoing Allen’s (2011a) desire for ‘evidence-based practice’, Munro (2011) advocated for a more child centred approach to child protection and a focus on partnership working. Alongside this in 2012 the Institute for Public Policy Research published ‘A long division: Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary schools’ (Clifton and Cook, 2012). This paper argued heavily in favour of early intervention provision, suggesting that unless children started school on a ‘level playing field’, schools and academies could not close the attainment gaps between the rich and poor. This paper echoed Allen’s (2011a) first Early Intervention publication in that it placed a heavy emphasis on ‘school and life readiness’. In February 2013, the Department for Education and the Early Intervention Foundation consortium agreed funding and signed a contract to create a new and independent Early Intervention Foundation (EIF),